New library services: why, what, how & so what?

UTS Library future service model (with notes)

View more documents from Mal Booth

What will people pay for online?

As a former economist, I have long been interested in the new economic or commercial models that are emerging on the web. Many of us will be familiar with Chris Anderson’s “Long Tail” description of the niche marketing of online stores like Amazon. Well, here is another theory. It comes from another respected web pioneer: Kevin Kelly (who helped launch Wired Magazine and is still a board member of the Long Now Foundation).

Kelly has recently written up a post called Better Than Free and in it he offers us “eight generatives” that people will still be willing to pay for in the new web environment (”a copy machine”) where so many copies of everything are now available somewhere for free (eg. peer-to-peer networks, not that I’d have any idea what they are for!).

What he says is that even when some product or service is available for free, we are probably still willing to pay for it elsewhere when it is surrounded by or within an environment characterised by these qualities (which can’t be copied, cloned, faked, replicated, counterfeited, or reproduced). Here is a quick and dirty summary of Kelly’s article with my comments about how each one might apply in the museum world, in italics:

• Immediacy – Eventually you will be able to find a free version of just about everything somewhere, but it could take sometime. People still pay a premium for special air delivery import magazines, so in much the same way we value getting a copy immediately delivered to our inbox as soon as it is released, requested or created. Digital downloads by subscription where applicable and possible.
• Personalization — Generic versions may well be free, but getting something bespoke will always be something that some people want. Offering products like hand-crafted digital prints, very high resolution objects, or rare special copies/facsimile editions may be well received.
• Interpretation — "As the old joke goes: software, free. The manual, $10,000. But it’s no joke." I'm not sure how this applies to us because for many museums, particularly in Australia, although we have bucket loads of interpretation, the general expectation is that we provide it, as well as most quick reference services, for free online. Perhaps we need to look at paid subscriptions for well-written online publications?
• Authenticity — "You’ll pay for authenticity." Again, we can offer very authentic material and already have this advantage. More, better branding?
• Accessibility – "Ownership often sucks. You have to keep your things tidy, up-to-date, and in the case of digital material, backed up. Many people, me included, will be happy to have others tend our “possessions” by subscribing to them." I'm still not so sure about this generative: in some ways, we can get web services like del.icio.us and Google Reader to do such things for us, like looking after our bookmarks/favourites and blogs (respectively) for free. It also doesn't seem to be named that well.
• Embodiment — "At its core the digital copy is without a body. . . . The music is free; the bodily performance expensive." For museums I think this is about what else we can offer in terms of paid programs or experiences. Generally, major museums and galleries in Oz, charge only for special/imported exhibitions or "blockbusters" (except us). Perhaps it means selling or charging curatorial talks on the talks circuit. I do a few of those in relation to our Lawrence exhibition and a few other things, and so far they are all free!
• Patronage — Audiences probably want or at least don't mind paying creators. "But they will only pay if it is very easy to do, a reasonable amount, and they feel certain the money will directly benefit the creators." This applies universally for creators, including us, but we probably need to pay more attention to making payment easier and reasonable.
• Findability — "No matter what its price, a work has no value unless it is seen; unfound masterpieces are worthless." I like this one a lot and it is probably one of the most relevant to our cultural world where such a large percentage of our collections is not on permanent display. It should not be too hard to highlight, find and get our products and services - not too many gates or complicated registration.

Some of these eight qualities apply to us more than others and a few could be better described or have a different descriptor applied to them (like accessibility?). To the list I’d probably add trust and, like one of his comments says, usability. Most cultural institutions are trusted and we can take advantage of that, but usability isn't really a major focus - think of most of our unfriendly catalogues and systems.

OK, so I might occasionally use a peer-to-peer network for some music and films that are either impossible hard to get or far too expensive in Oz, but I also download a lot of material for a fee from iTunes and I’d agree that the reasons I do this are pretty well mapped out above. If we are to come up with a decent model to make money or even recover costs for certain products and services on our museum websites, we need to very carefully look at this article.

Going Virtual for Enhanced Library Experience: a Case Study of the National Library of Singapore

(Keynote)
Schubert Foo, Professor, Division of Information Studies, Wee Kim Wee School of Communication & Information, Nanyang Technological University
Abstract
Amidst changing lifestyles, Internet savvy users, and the availability of large amounts of information on the Web, libraries are faced with the main challenge to remain relevant and to continue develop innovative products and services to serve the needs of users. This paper proposes a number of roles that libraries can play in such a future: as info-concierges; as a network of inter-connected info-concierges; and as a network of true collaborations. Using a case study of the National Library Singapore (NLS), a number of initiatives currently undertaken by the library to move forward in such a direction are outlined. These include the introduction of a SMS reference service, enhanced accessibility of NLS’s content through deliberate availability in users’ search and social networking spaces, and the development and use of a platform that uses the principles of “wiki” to support the formation and use of a collaborative reference network to support reference enquiries.
This paper is directly relevant to our references services in the Research Centre. I'll make the full paper available to all RC staff (and anyone else interested) when I get back. My notes here are really pretty rough, but give you a taste of the content.
He was impressed by what he had seen and heard at the conference and encouraged us to spread our wings and not always expect the US to be the leaders in information management and technology.
He said that his students in Singapore have been very keen on using Wikipedia as a reference source for nearly everything! Many public reference enquiries received from parents on behalf of their children for study purposes. They use an acceptable complaint:compliment ratio of 1:24. Collaboration in teams is big in Singapore.
Libraries: brick V click; collect-organise-store-access; mediator (source-user); authoritative-trusted content. Most library users don't come to the library they are net users. They use search engines and sometimes they believe that that is the only place to find information. Instant gratification is expected and must be download-able; they are not interested in browsing. They also like exceptional user-experiences (memorable, unique, exceptional were the words he used), but are not interested in help files. Only 1% of users go to an OPAC – they prefer Google (55%), Yahoo (21%) and then MSN (9.6%), in Singapore (I expect that the % in favour of Google is higher in Australia).
So what do we do as librarians? (Well, not me as I'm not a librarian.) We delve into their net world. Singapore has high saturation of broadband, PCs and mobile phone use. SMS is very highly used too. SMS plans are much cheaper there. (I think cost has a lot to do with the usage rates of new IT services and the web.) Users want to connect anywhere, anytime from any device.
The Info-Concierge – information as a commodity. Each object is self-contained, but must be connected and across multi-platforms. Let users continue on the pathway of discovery - “what is next?”. Connectivity through links, different platforms and by pushing/suggesting further exploration (like Amazon does). They use push for simple alerts, but it could be pushed much more on a finer granular manner. The concern is spamming users or intruding on their private spaces. They want to deliver information to users, not bother them. Basic encouragement ideas: taxonomies (browsing); formats; relational search; events; share & join in.
Promotion of discovery is very important. A good example is bookjetty.com, and where formal MARC records that are augmented by user tags/comments, like LibraryThing for Libraries. Bookjetty recognises where you are and presents you with options relevant for you. It gets users to get back to the library.
Libraries need to harvest, select & authenticate, meta-tag, create/maintain/grow taxonomies (they must be download-able!), and organise information content.
He encouraged connections (facilitated by libraries using Web 2.0): content-content; content-people; and people-people. Using tools like wikis, blogs & social spaces.
They also curate exhibitions relevant to topical and current events and to highlight their collections. All are eventually moved online in a virtual sense.
Reference services are provided within reach of everyone – wherever, whenever. SMS service as well as email and mobile phone. SMS request constrained to 160 characters. Answers are usually sent back as a URL within a template. If they provide a book's catalogue entry, they have a comment field for value-adding “Librarian's notes”. It finishes with a feedback sheet that attempts to get to know the user better by three key questions – like usefulness, finished, other comments (I could not read them on the screen). He said users are overwhelmingly positive in feedback.
They have an infopedia like our Encyclopedia, that was once buried in their website and now can be accessed by Google, Yahoo and MSN (he calls them the "GYM space"). They've used a microsite to expose it to Google. Content can be found more easily on Google Maps, Google Earth, a Yahoo Search, etc. Content usage has increased exponentially (160 fold). I wasn't sure how they managed to push the content to these search engines – may be in the paper.
Collaborative research responses. Making wider use of librarians and even other users. There are multiple entry points and a network of specialists (community) that power it and moderate it. Based on a wiki. Community alerted by SMS/email to them and can come in and assist to make the full answer. Multi-user collaboration.
Conclusions
He urges support for librarians to initiate new projects, but says that we should not push too hard and allow for some experiments to fail. We also need to get to know users better and encourage information literacy. The basics are still needed.
Question responses:
He referred to the recent JISC/British Library report The Google generation is a myth – they are not that information (web) literate. One stop shops don't work. He said that we need to be much more e-consumer friendly and connect via Facebook, etc. [The significance of this for research libraries is threefold: (1) they need to make their sites more highly visible in cyberspace by opening them up to search engines; they should abandon any hope of being a one-stop shop; they should accept that much content will seldom or never be used, other than perhaps a place from which to bounce.]
He was asked about Second Life and said that he thought it was something that a lot of users went into once and came out, then never returned. He suspects users are not serious about using it. (Apparently it has a huge “churn rate”.)